It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Strange Object In Space! And It's Not The ISS!

page: 5
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Strapping apologizes to any offended by my post.

Ouch...didnt mean to sound that way...Im new here. Been a lurker for a long time. Glad to see some very knowledgeable ppl coming in on this one.

Heres a theory that I dont think Ive EVER seen on ATS. If someone could direct me Id be very thankful...

Here goes...
ATMOSPHERIC LIFEFORMS

Theres actually been alot of speculation about this for hundereds of years. Huge gelatinous(sp?) blobs...many with hair...fall from the sky. Only to evaporate over just a few days.

I believe these make up 90% of the REAL UFO's.

Just check out old footage of the Apollo missions. Plenty of footage of "asteroids and meteorites" skimming across low orbit. Funny I never knew "asteroids and meteorites" could slow down, stop and or change direction.

Im here on ATS to try at least to throw out theoris and angles that have been around a very long time that I almost never see on ATS....

This I guess would be the first one...




posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Strapping Young Lad
 


So I guess you are talking about things like the "critters"




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Thank you for the reply, Sherpa.

Firstly, I believe that the images are of much less value than the method - or thoughts further provoked. I really don't care much about the 'Interstellar' video content - Mr. Walson's endeavouring to become a billionaire over this.... etc. And I truly don't want to become embroiled in the controversy of this debate. It is simply that myself - and now - daily, more around the globe are coming forth with simple images... taken over their homelands - that bear a certain simularity.

The equipment I used to get my modest little images - was a mere hand-held Canon Power Shot Digital Elph SD750. I don't know all of the specs of the CCD ... etc. I did 'zoom in' - which in my case - was a max of 12 X.

This object was located in the southwestern sky - approximately 20 degrees up on the horizon - below - and in the general vicinity of the constellation 'Orion.' It was completely visible to the naked eye. Time of the sightings were regularly between 2100 and 2300 hrs - EST, USA.


If folks go to the following ( and forementioned ) hyperlink - they can left-click on the images - and this will open up files that are 7.1 megs of digital information.

skymonsters.com...

-----

These aren't random chance sightings. There is a childishly-simple approach that we are taking to find what I refer to as 'Chameleon Stars.' I call them this... not because the hide against a background... but because they apparently change colors. They continue to be odd-looking & moving, relative to the rest of the 'ordinary' stars.

They are flashing reds, blues and greens - when all of the rest are pale white. As I look into a clear night sky - I scan across the horizon - investigating each azimuth - and always, with my naked eye - can I find 2 or 3 standouts - they are almost always literally in the four corners of the sky. As I watched them closer - I would sometimes see small specks of light seemingly jumping off of them. It almost appears as if they are spinning.

The first time I noticed them was back in 1994, over Los Angeles, california. When I looked at one through a telescope... it looked like a cardboard roll... like when the TP is all gone from the restroom. Not being funny really... that was the shape of it. Another time... I found one that looked like the 'Bat plane' - and I later saw the exact shape on a video taken by a space shuttle mission. Was odd coincidence.

This has been around for a very long time.

Actually, resumed shooting these images - a couple of months ago. I now have a catalogue of them for verification posted. I have also been posting a diary of my observations ( with pictures ) on a thread at UFOcasebook. Go down the following page about half-way... and look for the 'notched disk' image. The story will commence there.

ufocasebook.conforums.com...

So, in conclusion - it is my belief that all Mr. Walson is doing is; ( with the aid of a high-powered zoom lens - a 'High 8' or better videocam - [Fugitron would be perfect... but cost prohibitive.])

1) Visually locating the 'chameleon stars'

2 ) Aligning the object into his viewfinder --

3) Fully 'racking-out' the 'zoom' to 'infinity'- then disabling 'auto focus' function -

4) And pressing 'record'

After that, some manual camera tracking may be required as well.


I say that anyone can do this. I don't know.... or really care about Mr. Walson and his videos. I just know what I saw and recorded. I firmly believe - with similar images coming from across the world - that it is the same thing.

Nothing is truly debunked in a message forum. Topics can only be pro or con to the general concensus. Aggresive posters implying 'Because I said so' - means absolutely nothing.


Just my opinion



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Strapping Young Lad
Heres a theory that I dont think Ive EVER seen on ATS. If someone could direct me Id be very thankful...

Here goes...
ATMOSPHERIC LIFEFORMS



SYL, that means you haven't surfed ATS enough!!
Here's a thread of mine dealing in the subject!

Alien Creatures In Space!

Trust Mike to have information on the bizarre!!


Cheers!



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 


Hi John! A very interesting post.


Could you post some of those images here? Should be very interesting! Thanks in advance!

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 



Thank you for sharing those images and for your interesting post, Johnbro.
The exposure time of this image that you have posted is one second. It's not a short time shot. In one second, it may happen anything. This data, how you can see, is very important, and it's still what we miss about the OP images (and even if we would be able to exctract them, EXIF data would prove nothing). So what's your take about the exposure time of the OP images? 1 second? 2? More? Less?



[edit on 9/1/2008 by internos]



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 


Hi Sherpa, Yea a big old Dob. Wanna see it?

I really just want a Mead 10 " Cass ,cause the Dob is so damed big I can't easily get it to a good seeing sky without my trailer and few friends. It has shown in astronomy shows and an art show up at Lawrence Hall of Science at Berkley, so it has pedigree too. Saw Halley through it. Awesome view.

We put my Goddaughter just born up to the eyepiece so the light from the coma would hit her optic nerve. You see, Her name was given as Halley. She was Valedictorian at Duke last year. A real comet.




Is this in relation to your observations or something else ?


Not only have I seen with others very strange, and, very solid giant craft, but many sharp people I know, and then some have seen and recorded such phenomena.

I once stood with hundreds of amateur astronomers at a conference at 9000ft with a telescope in every campsite, when a very strange laser green geometric object flew over at the speed of a small plane. I don't know how many saw it. They where all doing astronomy, so I assume. But I seemed to be the only one talking about it. Go figure.




Do you have any theories as yet as to how these images are being produced and do you think they can be reproduced ?


I don't think this can be as easy to fake as we might think, but then I find no evidence this is anything but what the OT says it is, er, I mean shows it is.

I suppose if you love being ridiculed and called a nut that faking this would be a way to get more of that. But, I doubt this is contrived, and have no evidence of that . Looks possible to me and the story is not that strange. So, I would keep this one as a possible positive. Not finished looking just yet however.

So Sherpa, do you climb? (as your name implies?) I almost went to Nepal in 99 to take a course with the Karmalpa and HHDL. Planned to climb a bit too. Got called away at the last minuet. Love the high rocks though. Only two mountains of note in my travels. Would love to see Himalayan highlands. Sherpas are great heroes. Good handle.


ZG



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Johnbro
 


Thanks for your reply John.


Firstly, I believe that the images are of much less value than the method - or thoughts further provoked. I really don't care much about the 'Interstellar' video content - Mr. Walson's endeavouring to become a billionaire over this.... etc. And I truly don't want to become embroiled in the controversy of this debate. It is simply that myself - and now - daily, more around the globe are coming forth with simple images... taken over their homelands - that bear a certain simularity.


I wholeheartedly agree, frankly the whole jlw subject is pointless and feel the images are the subject worthy of investigation, duplication is the important point here and only then can the discussion be about the how, where and what.


The equipment I used to get my modest little images - was a mere hand-held Canon Power Shot Digital Elph SD750. I don't know all of the specs of the CCD ... etc. I did 'zoom in' - which in my case - was a max of 12 X.


Well the interesting part of that is the possibility of better definition and resolution with a scope. I am almost motivated to drag mine out to find out, I would have to buy another ccd though to obtain images.


Go down the following page about half-way... and look for the 'notched disk' image. The story will commence there.


I have read your posts over at ufocasebooks very interesting, the notched disc seems to a be a genuine phenomenom as this has been recorded by nasa, ie the tether incident and seems to be recorded now from earth.


Nothing is truly debunked in a message forum. Topics can only be pro or con to the general concensus. Aggresive posters implying 'Because I said so' - means absolutely nothing.


I am with you on that one.

Thanks again for your post John I hope you will continue to post in the future.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 



Yea a big old Dob. Wanna see it?


Darn that's not a scope that's a work of art



I really just want a Mead 10 " Cass ,cause the Dob is so damed big I can't easily get it to a good seeing sky without my trailer and few friends.


I know exactly where you are coming from, I have a 16" lightbridge and lugging it outside, assembling it, collimating, setting up the Dob driver II,
hooking up the ccd and laptop just to do it all in reverse, bar the collimating of course, when the clouds roll in I kinda lose the will to live.


We put my Goddaughter just born up to the eyepiece so the light from the coma would hit her optic nerve. You see, Her name was given as Halley. She was Valedictorian at Duke last year. A real comet.


Cool.


Not only have I seen with others very strange, and, very solid giant craft, but many sharp people I know, and then some have seen and recorded such phenomena.


So..any chance of borrowing the material for scrutiny ?


So Sherpa, do you climb?


I knew that avatar was going to come back and bite me someday, no I don't, sorry, I chose the name because it was short and easy to remember other than that I don't know where it came from.
The Avatar was the most famous sherpa I had heard of Tensing Norgay quite a guy.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tangent45
I decided to re-edit the whole post. I have a question to the pros out there - how come that publically available images from large telescopes are so few ? Altogether they must generate millions of images every year worldwide, considering many of the very large telescopes are tax funded i find it kind of strange, civilian scientists are working with this material on a daily basis worldwide.


ESO VLT, Paranal Chile

Look at this enormous telescope GMT being built, finished 2016, Chile.

[edit on 8-1-2008 by tangent45]


Actually, most research grade telescopes and facilities are booked months or even years in advance. Rarely do they break off from a project to image anything they see in the sky.

The "users" of these billion dollar scopes are usually looking at something very specific in a very isolated parts of the sky. It's not like an amateur sitting at a scope sucking on a hot coffee all night.

Look at the sky through a cocktail straw, then tell me if you see anything strange around the sky.


Many of the images would be uninteresting to the general public. Sometimes just distant points they are looking for extremely small movement or spectral data. Most observatories do have lots of images they show and sell, but to a large extent it is more trouble to make available than demand would make practical. I have requested specific images and received them however. So you could ask. Nothing ventured...

ZG



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by sherpa
 



Well, with regard to our "encounter" send a U2U and I will see if I can. I have no time to post anything, but I am involved in producing on the subject, but anything for a fellow dark-sky-guy.


I never got CCD gear as I am waiting for a scope with an equatorial mount. Have the software though. As you know photography is just left of impossible with a Dobsonian. And, thanks for the compliment on the scope.
We really feel it is a sacred instrument and it will be hard to let her go, but if I do not get some nights in starry skys soon I'll go bonkers. You know what I mean I bet.

ZG



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 11:46 AM
link   
An SCT with equatorial mount gee, I sense a lighter wallet in the force


You have a U2U.



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ZeroGhost
 


excellent post on larger scopes,

i really like the straw analogy , most excellent.


love the scope, are you in the US or elsewhere ? wondered if you suffer from light pollution with that big behmoth of a scope !!

thanks

snoopyuk



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   
Thanks for the link..
Many times when Im going through the threads here on ATS Ill go looking for one thing and find it in another totally urelated category.
Aside from the political screaming matches which are pretty well organized its been pretty easy to get completely and totally lost here.

As for the whole atmospheric lifeforms thing. My opinion is that these are NOT alien! That whole blob and tether arm clip makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up its just so convincing. As are many other Nasa clips on Youtube. Isnt it illegal to post Youtube stuff here?

I just remember the whole Metallica sues fans for downloading their songs scenario. They bitched and whined so bad I got the impression James Hetfield was going to come over to my house and kick my ***.

Dont want any surviving Apollo astronauts threatening to sue me for downloading their "space debris that just happens to change speed, direction and even stop" film clips. Its all about copyrights yaknow..

Lastly Im in Washington D.C. nearby George Mason University has an awesome fairly new observatory that the public can occasionaly use.

One day...



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ZeroGhost

Actually, most research grade telescopes and facilities are booked months or even years in advance. Rarely do they break off from a project to image anything they see in the sky.

The "users" of these billion dollar scopes are usually looking at something very specific in a very isolated parts of the sky. It's not like an amateur sitting at a scope sucking on a hot coffee all night.

Look at the sky through a cocktail straw, then tell me if you see anything strange around the sky.


Many of the images would be uninteresting to the general public. Sometimes just distant points they are looking for extremely small movement or spectral data. Most observatories do have lots of images they show and sell, but to a large extent it is more trouble to make available than demand would make practical. I have requested specific images and received them however. So you could ask. Nothing ventured...

ZG


Ok thank much for your reply (a qualified one i guess). I know that VLT's are mostly used for strictly scientific research but less expensive large telescopes can be used for ordinary stuff like taking images of planets, stars and the night sky, Here in Sweden we have one at Uppsala Univ. with a diameter of 90cm, i think that counts as a large telescope, the ESO Paranal VLT is 8 meters+ as a comparison, Students can book the uppsala scope for doing research, it would be no hard task to point that large telescope in the direction of FAST/Walson's findings but since he refuse to give out the coordinates ...

I am also quite certain that some billion dollar scopes are being pointed in a non scientific direction now and then, no matter the cost. Super quality Images of the MIR, ISS, moon, planets, common stars and constellations and their surroundings must reside on a server somewhere in the scientific community. It should leak them.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by tangent45]



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
For purely illustrative purposes I have passed the OP's and various other images through an edge finding filter and gamma correction (post edge filter to enhance edge line visibility) to represent the huge discrepancies between the noise 'present' in the OP's images and the noise present in actual photos of the night sky.

The following images are best viewed on a dark background due to the faintness of some of the edge lines.

Firstly here are the OP's images:

"Rodent"


Nondescript


"Thunderbirds type spaceship model"


"Shrivelled balloon / condom"


Now here are various actual photographs of the night sky / space found in this thread:

Image from Johnbro's collection


'Space blob' image


Photo of the real ISS


ESO VLT, Paranal Chile



Now can anybody explain to me why the OP's images have a clear lack of noise anywhere in the image other than immediately surrounding the object?
Cropping would be the obvious answer, and I postulate that original photographs of random objects were cropped and then distorted before being placed on a black background, however this does not explain a valid reason for the images to have such a complete lack of noise if they were authentic photographs of objects in the night sky. Why, if they were valid photographs of the night sky, would the OP (or his friend) crop the original images only to place then place them on a large black canvas?

If anybody could give a valid reason as to how/why the OP's images are not hoaxed, I'd be interested to hear it.



posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Nondescript
Now can anybody explain to me why the OP's images have a clear lack of noise anywhere in the image other than immediately surrounding the object?
Cropping would be the obvious answer, and I postulate that original photographs of random objects were cropped and then distorted before being placed on a black background, however this does not explain a valid reason for the images to have such a complete lack of noise if they were authentic photographs of objects in the night sky. Why, if they were valid photographs of the night sky, would the OP (or his friend) crop the original images only to place then place them on a large black canvas?

If anybody could give a valid reason as to how/why the OP's images are not hoaxed, I'd be interested to hear it.

Good catch. Also note that on the following image there are 2 tones of black(the background where the object is looks darker than the background on the top of the image):
Note that the line where the two tones of black converge is easily seen in the filtered image. Because the line where the converging occurs is irregular, it gives me the impression that whoever did that was using a paintbrush. Why would anyone paint black on top of black? One reason I can think of is to get rid of an undesired drawing.


[edit on 11-1-2008 by daniel_g]

[edit on 12-1-2008 by daniel_g]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 04:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ferringer
 


Well, one can change any image by applying filters! It must be remembered that all parameters must be the same for all images in case one wants to compare them. The images you have shown do not conform to this requirement as they have been taken using vastly different methods and equipment.

Having said that, here’s a pic of Mars taken by an ordinary telescope. Where is the background noise?



www.youtube.com...

Anyway, I'm not a professional photographer or a specialist CGI whiz kid! I'm trying to find the answers myself with the help of other ATSers here. So if your contention is that these pics are hoaxes, then yes, they probably are! But we need to dig some more, before we can arrive at a definite conclusion.

Thanks for the input!

Cheers!





[edit on 12-1-2008 by mikesingh]



posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:48 PM
link   
Well taking random frames from a YouTube video isn't quite the same as a photograph because video compression codecs apply various filters to the video to improve compression and have a tendency to lose data and apply their own artefacts, however there is plenty of noise in that linked video:





And as can be seen, as the zoom increases, the noise ratio increases.

Just as a note, exactly the same process was applied to all images to show the level of noise present.



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Looks to me like a piece of puke in space???? Astronauts are crazy..




top topics



 
77
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join